Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: CVIndex telling me to never split (8, 8) vs. X or (X, X) vs. 5/6

  1. #1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    CVIndex telling me to never split (8, 8) vs. X or (X, X) vs. 5/6

    I'm having an issue generating indexes, where even though in the full report it shows that splitting (8,8) has a better expected value than not splitting, it still tells me not to split. These are not risk averse indexes, so they should be maxing expected value. While I do want to use risk-averse indexes, I want to figure out the issue here first so that I know I can trust what I get when I compute them.

    I also find it weird that there's no index for splitting (X, X) against 5 or 6. The full report for this one though doesn't go to a high enough count to show whether splitting will eventually have a higher expected value. It looks like if it just tracked 1 or 2 counts higher, then splitting would be better.

    Here are the rules of the game:

    single-deck
    dealer hits on soft 17
    double only on 9, 10, 11
    no double after split
    re-split aces
    no surrender
    Fixed rounds: rounds+players = 6

    The counting system is unbalanced zen 2, and I use an initial running count of -1.

    I attached the indexes I generated, which were the big 63 plus (8, 8) against X, but without the ones that didn't make sense for this game. I also attached the full report where you can see how the expected value changes at different counts.

    Has anyone else had a similar issue?

    Indexes:

    Indexes.png

    Full Report: Full Report-compressed.pdf

    Export:
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by Starchild; 05-30-2021 at 02:13 PM. Reason: Redacted export. Will respond

  2. #2
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Cooking at the moment. I'll get back to you.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  3. #3
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Change the shuffle setting to fixed cut card and change the penetration to a reasonable number. The results will be correct. The generation was being run with a penetration of only a few cards severely limiting the count range. I’ll change the interface to not allow rule of X on index generation as it really doesn’t make sense for generation.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  4. #4


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I made that change and it seems to create more reasonable indexes.

    I was using fixed rounds since it was a single deck game that doesn't use a fixed cut card. Would using a fixed cut card cause issues because of the cut card effect with only one deck?

  5. #5
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    No. Cut card effect affects overall results in a sim as it changes the count frequencies for betting purposes. That is, more will be bet at bad counts. Single-deck rule of X would also change the count frequencies for playing purposes at third base depending on the number of players. Cut card does not materially affect index generation results as count statistics are examined independently, not as a whole to calculate overall results as in simulation. Initial bets are not a part of index generation. Only increased bets due to doubles and splits are taken into account with RA indices.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  6. #6


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Alternative

    Quote Originally Posted by Starchild View Post
    I'm having an issue generating indexes, where even though in the full report it shows that splitting (8,8) has a better expected value than not splitting, it still tells me not to split. These are not risk averse indexes, so they should be maxing expected value. While I do want to use risk-averse indexes, I want to figure out the issue here first so that I know I can trust what I get when I compute them.

    I also find it weird that there's no index for splitting (X, X) against 5 or 6. The full report for this one though doesn't go to a high enough count to show whether splitting will eventually have a higher expected value. It looks like if it just tracked 1 or 2 counts higher, then splitting would be better.

    Here are the rules of the game:

    single-deck
    dealer hits on soft 17
    double only on 9, 10, 11
    no double after split
    re-split aces
    no surrender
    Fixed rounds: rounds+players = 6

    The counting system is unbalanced zen 2, and I use an initial running count of -1.

    I attached the indexes I generated, which were the big 63 plus (8, 8) against X, but without the ones that didn't make sense for this game. I also attached the full report where you can see how the expected value changes at different counts.

    Has anyone else had a similar issue?

    Indexes:

    Indexes.png

    Full Report: Full Report-compressed.pdf

    Export:

    This seems like a pretty stable count relative to the 8-8 versus 10 index for single deck. Basically earlier in the shoe split when running count is less than 7 or 6 and later when it is less than 5. The other values are just fringe values that are very unlikely to come up.

    I used my program to get the data for the rules stated. Presently it generates rank probabilities based on a count prior to an up card being dealt and then removes the up card and incorporates it into the final running count. By doing this I can generate indexes for all up cards at once. Version 2 of the program would get rank probabilities post up card being dealt. This is the way I generate insurance indexes now in the present version.

    You stated that you are using an initial running count of -1. I am using an initial running count of -4 so you would need to add 3 to the RC. I did not output the data programmatically but assembled it piece-meal.

    Count tags {1,-1,-2,-2,-2,-2,-1,0,0,2}
    Composition dependent indices for hand, rules, number of decks, and pen
    Player hand composition: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0: Hard 16, 2 cards
    Decks: 1 (possible input for cards remaining: 1 to 52)

    >= 43 cards p always
    42 cards p<7, p>=8
    41 cards p<7, p>=11
    40 cards p<6, p>=14
    39 cards p<6, p>=16
    38 cards p<6, p>=18
    37 cards p<6, p>=20
    36 cards p<6
    35 cards p<6
    34 to 27 cards p<5
    26 to 21 cards p<5, h>=34
    20 cards p<5, h>=33
    19 cards p<5, h>=32
    18 cards p<5, h>=31
    17 cards p<5, h>=30
    16 cards p>=-29, s>=5, h>=28
    15 cards p>=-27, s>=5, h>=26
    14 cards p>=-24, s>=5, h>=24
    13 cards p>=-22, s>=5, h>=22

    k_c

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.